PDA

View Full Version : federer as a clay courter


big ted
10-08-2012, 01:26 PM
where do you rank federer on the list as one of the greatest claycourters of all time? he only won 1 french open, but he lost to nadal in the semis or finals 4 other times. if nadal wasnt there, he could have 5 french opens. would you rate him above kuerten, brugera, courier who have more titles? i might rate him at least the lendl/wilander range who have 3 each. what do you think?

3fees
10-08-2012, 01:42 PM
He's number 3 right now behind Nole and Nadal.

big ted
10-08-2012, 01:53 PM
He's number 3 right now behind Nole and Nadal.

how is nole ranked a better clay courter of all time than federer?

rdis10093
10-08-2012, 01:55 PM
no way novak is better than fed.

The Bawss
10-08-2012, 01:58 PM
He's number 3 right now behind Nole and Nadal.

Hahahahah Nole! Hahahahahahahahahahahahaha. That mug that has 0 FO's and only 1 final? The same guy who got spanked by Olderer in 2011?

Gonzo_style
10-08-2012, 02:01 PM
1. Nadal
2. Borg
3. Lendl
4. Wilander
5. Kuerten
6. Villas
7. Federer

Open era only....

Gonzo_style
10-08-2012, 02:02 PM
Hahahahah Nole! Hahahahahahahahahahahahaha. That mug that has 0 FO's and only 1 final? The same guy who got spanked by Olderer in 2011?

Read better next time. He said "right now"!

SStrikerR
10-08-2012, 02:06 PM
Read better next time. He said "right now"!

And the topic said "all time" so his post was stupid either way.

Mighty Matteo
10-08-2012, 02:08 PM
imo, federer is a much better claycourter than lendl and wilander.

The Bawss
10-08-2012, 02:15 PM
Read better next time. He said "right now"!

I know, Ferrer > Djokovic on clay. Ferrer just has a mental problem against Nadal.

Gonzo_style
10-08-2012, 02:19 PM
I know, Ferrer > Djokovic on clay. Ferrer just has a mental problem against Nadal.

Explain this please....

dangalak
10-08-2012, 02:39 PM
Kuerten made Fed his bytch 6-4 6-4 6-4 in 2004 with only half a hip, I think we can safely say Kuerten is a better claycourter than Fed.

That's not a devastating scoreline.

I agree that Kuerten is >> Federer, but Federer is in the top 10 IMO.

NadalAgassi
10-08-2012, 02:49 PM
Somewhere from 8-15 all time. Most likely just outside the top 10 all time at 11th or 12th. Open Era alone I would rank him 6th behind Nadal, Borg, Lendl, Kuerten, Wilander in that order. There is no argument whatsoever for him being higher than 6th in the Open Era, but one could argue him being lower than Muster or Courier, and thus arguably lower than 6th.

dangalak
10-08-2012, 02:51 PM
Somewhere from 8-15 all time. Most likely just outside the top 10 all time at 11th or 12th. Open Era alone I would rank him 6th behind Nadal, Borg, Lendl, Kuerten, Wilander in that order. There is no argument whatsoever for him being higher than 6th in the Open Era, but one could argue him being lower than Muster or Courier, and thus arguaably lower than 6th.

You underestimate Nadal and Kuerten bro. He would give Courier as tough fight, even if he is less accompished. Muster is a lefty so I won't pick Federer over him.

NadalAgassi
10-08-2012, 02:51 PM
bleacher report ranks

This part alone is enough for some major LOLz.

dangalak
10-08-2012, 02:52 PM
Lol Bleacher report.

You their tennis writers are worse than their MMA writers.

And that's quite a statement.

NadalAgassi
10-08-2012, 02:53 PM
You underestimate Nadal and Kuerten bro.

No I dont. I ranked them 1st and 4th in the Open Era on clay, and Nadal 1st all time. Cant go any higher.

He would give Courier as tough fight, even if he is less accompished.

Of course I think that, why do you think I ranked Federer ahead with 1 less French Open title, since I think Courier would walk over him, LOL! Likewise Federer would in no way walk over prime Courier on clay as easily as the ****s on this forum think though. It would be a tough battle, although I will say Courier at the 92 French was better than any tournament Federer played on clay IMO.

Muster is a lefty so I won't pick Federer over him.

95-96 Muster would beat Federer on clay more often than not. Prime Federer would beat Muster of any other year quite easily though.

dangalak
10-08-2012, 02:55 PM
No I dont. I ranked them 1st and 4th in the Open Era on clay, and Nadal 1st all time. Cant go any higher.



Of course I think that, why do you think I ranked Federer ahead with 1 less French Open title, since I think Courier would walk over him, LOL! Likewise Federer would in no way walk over prime Courier on clay as easily as the ****s on this forum think though. It would be a tough battle, although I will say Courier at the 92 French was better than any tournament Federer played on clay IMO.



95-96 Muster would beat Federer on clay more often than not. Prime Federer would beat Muster of any other year quite easily though.

I am intoxicated a little and misread your post. :)

Prisoner of Birth
10-08-2012, 03:04 PM
Top 15, definitely, top 10, probably. Never really gave it too much thought, though.

paulorenzo
10-08-2012, 03:06 PM
Lol Bleacher report.

You their tennis writers are worse than their MMA writers.

And that's quite a statement.

i'm actually writing a piece where i'm using bleacher report as an example of publications not doing tennis writing justice. lawl

90's Clay
10-08-2012, 03:09 PM
Third tier clay talent.. Behind Guga, Lendl, Borg, Nadal, Vilas. Rosewall, Wilander and probably a few others.

I got Fed in the Bruguera, Courier, Muster territory.. That might even be generous. Muster at his peak was WAY better then Fed on clay at his peak. Courier was probably just as good as fed on clay at his peak.. So was Bruguera

kishnabe
10-08-2012, 03:09 PM
Top 10(lower end like 9 or 10) for sure.

Would be Number 1 if it weren't for that meddiling Spannish Bulldog Nadal.

Gonzo_style
10-08-2012, 03:14 PM
Top 10(lower end like 9 or 10) for sure.

Would be Number 1 if it weren't for that meddiling Spannish Bulldog Nadal.

Cry me a river :)

The Bawss
10-08-2012, 03:30 PM
Of course I think that, why do you think I ranked Federer ahead with 1 less French Open title, since I think Courier would walk over him, LOL! Likewise Federer would in no way walk over prime Courier on clay as easily as the ****s on this forum think though. It would be a tough battle, although I will say Courier at the 92 French was better than any tournament Federer played on clay IMO.



No. Either you didn't watch tennis in the 90s and are just regurgitating crap you heard some old people with rose-tinted glasses say or you just don't have the ability to recognise Fed is a superior talent to Courier, even on the red stuff. What did Courier have that could have hurt Fed? An ok forehand. That's it. He doesn't possess the same weapons as Nadal (leftie serve, big leftie crosscourt topspin forehand, incredible defence). If they had met on clay it would have been 4 sets a la Fed Djokovic 2011 all day, every day.

smoledman
10-08-2012, 03:56 PM
Federer should be the highest ranked 1-time FO winner.

smoledman
10-08-2012, 03:58 PM
Third tier clay talent.. Behind Guga, Lendl, Borg, Nadal, Vilas. Rosewall, Wilander and probably a few others.

I got Fed in the Bruguera, Courier, Muster territory.. That might even be generous. Muster at his peak was WAY better then Fed on clay at his peak. Courier was probably just as good as fed on clay at his peak.. So was Bruguera

You're forgetting the main point. If Federer only wanted to be a clay warrior, he would have posted much better results. But he wanted to be great in the 2nd half of the season too.

Prisoner of Birth
10-08-2012, 03:58 PM
Federer should be the highest ranked 1-time FO winner.

That goes without saying. He ranks above most 2- time winners, too.

smoledman
10-08-2012, 03:59 PM
That goes without saying. He ranks above most 2- time winners, too.

No way. 10 chars

BauerAlmeida
10-08-2012, 03:59 PM
1-Nadal
2-Borg
3-Kuerten
4-Lendl
5-Vilas
6-Federer
7-Wilander
8-Muster
9-Courier
10-Don't know....

Aren't Federer's 5 straight RG SF a record in the open era? And if it wasn't for Nadal he would have like 5 RG.

SoBad
10-08-2012, 04:01 PM
Top 15, definitely, top 10, probably. Never really gave it too much thought, though.

If we are talking 2003-2008 among players of his generation, he could easily make top 20.

90's Clay
10-08-2012, 04:01 PM
1-Nadal
2-Borg
3-Kuerten
4-Lendl
5-Vilas
6-Federer
7-Wilander
8-Muster
9-Courier
10-Don't know....

Aren't Federer's 5 straight RG SF a record in the open era? And if it wasn't for Nadal he would have like 5 RG.



Did you see most of the draws he had to get to those finals?? :shock:

SoBad
10-08-2012, 04:09 PM
Did you see most of the draws he had to get to those finals?? :shock:

He lacks the perception of clay - the kind of man who whiffs forehands at match point in a final in Madrid.

dangalak
10-08-2012, 04:14 PM
He lacks the perception of clay - the kind of man who whiffs forehands at match point in a final in Madrid.

Do you even know what "whiffing" means? :lol:

dangalak
10-08-2012, 04:42 PM
So did Rafter.

1999. :lol:

NadalDramaQueen
10-08-2012, 04:44 PM
So did Rafter.

Speaking of beatdowns, do you remember when Roddick shoved a bagel down Rafito's throat at the US Open? Of course you don't, you haven't been watching tennis for that long. :)

RF20Lennon
10-08-2012, 05:26 PM
Speaking of beatdowns, do you remember when Roddick shoved a bagel down Rafito's throat at the US Open? Of course you don't, you haven't been watching tennis for that long. :)

he served a 140 mile an hour ace to Rafa's face in that match

dangalak
10-08-2012, 05:26 PM
Speaking of beatdowns, do you remember when Roddick shoved a bagel down Rafito's throat at the US Open? Of course you don't, you haven't been watching tennis for that long. :)

Youzhny beat Nadal 6-0,6-1, in 2008. :lol:

RF20Lennon
10-08-2012, 05:32 PM
Youzhny beat Nadal 6-0,6-1, in 2008. :lol:

In Chennai right??

SoBad
10-08-2012, 05:35 PM
Do you even know what "whiffing" means? :lol:

No - I was hoping someone like you would educate me.:-|:(
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NVpuMQ08qEk
:lol:

NadalDramaQueen
10-08-2012, 05:38 PM
No - I was hoping someone like you would educate me.:-|:(
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NVpuMQ08qEk
:lol:

Do I need to post videos of Nadal falling on his behind in the clay or hitting a serve into the ground before the net?

SoBad
10-08-2012, 05:41 PM
Do I need to post videos of Nadal falling on his behind in the clay or hitting a serve into the ground before the net?

How would that help dangalak explain to me the term "whiffing"?

NadalDramaQueen
10-08-2012, 05:42 PM
How would that help dangalak explain to me the term "whiffing"?

I don't speak for dangalak personally. Just wondering if you need some videos of Rafa looking like an buffoon on his best surface. Just let me know.

SoBad
10-08-2012, 05:43 PM
I don't speak for dangalak personally. Just wondering if you need some videos of Rafa looking like an buffoon on his best surface. Just let me know.

All we are doing here now is trying to help dangalak, can't you see that?

Crisstti
10-08-2012, 05:46 PM
he served a 140 mile an hour ace to Rafa's face in that match

Lol, no, he didn't.

NadalDramaQueen
10-08-2012, 05:47 PM
All we are doing here now is trying to help dangalak, can't you see that?

Who is we?

Lol, no, he didn't.

No, he didn't. He hit it in Rafa's general direction and Rafa deflected it into his own face (or close enough to be pretty funny).

SoBad
10-08-2012, 05:48 PM
Who is we?

The tennis forum community, you fresh green troll.

NadalDramaQueen
10-08-2012, 05:51 PM
The tennis forum community, you fresh green troll.

Ah, I thought you were suggesting that you were part of the *** army.

I am blue now, by the way. :cool:

SoBad
10-08-2012, 05:54 PM
Ah, I thought you were suggesting that you were part of the *** army.

I am blue now, by the way. :cool:

You mean one of those Gen. Kaishek's KMT units?:-|

Crisstti
10-08-2012, 05:55 PM
No, he didn't. He hit it in Rafa's general direction and Rafa deflected it into his own face (or close enough to be pretty funny).

Yep. I think it did actually hit him.

Wouldn't have counted as an ace either ;)

NadalDramaQueen
10-08-2012, 05:57 PM
Yep. I think it did actually hit him.

I think so as well, but it wasn't such a big deal. By the way, I apologize for being harsh about Rafa, TDK is just getting a bit annoying. I will cut it out.

Crisstti
10-08-2012, 06:00 PM
I think so as well, but it wasn't such a big deal. By the way, I apologize for being harsh about Rafa, TDK is just getting a bit annoying. I will cut it out.

No, I don't think either it was such a big deal. He found it hard to deal with Roddick's serve in that match. I think he was returning very close to the baseline.

TDK can do that, apparently ;)

kragster
10-08-2012, 06:14 PM
1-Nadal
2-Borg
3-Kuerten
4-Lendl
5-Vilas
6-Federer
7-Wilander
8-Muster
9-Courier
10-Don't know....

Aren't Federer's 5 straight RG SF a record in the open era? And if it wasn't for Nadal he would have like 5 RG.

I think 6 is a good assessment. Federer did run into the clay goat, however we can't magically gift players slams based on who they faced or did not face. 1 slam + 5 finals should put him in the 2-3 slam winner range .

6 is not shabby though. # 1 on hard courts , # 1 on grass (with Sampras) and # 6 on clay. Cant think of a player who wouldnt take that resume.

jokinla
10-08-2012, 06:17 PM
how is nole ranked a better clay courter of all time than federer?

He's not, some people just don't read the OP.

TMF
10-08-2012, 06:41 PM
I think 6 is a good assessment. Federer did run into the clay goat, however we can't magically gift players slams based on who they faced or did not face. 1 slam + 5 finals should put him in the 2-3 slam winner range .

6 is not shabby though. # 1 on hard courts , # 1 on grass (with Sampras) and # 6 on clay. Cant think of a player who wouldnt take that resume.

QFT. I've have him at #7.

Some people just ignore the fact that Nadal is a clay goat and he's playing in this era. Not in the 60s, 70s or 90s. Federer is 2nd best behind him, and any past player who play along with Nadal can only be 2nd best(that's include borg, lendl, guga, rosewall). Had Nadal was just an average cc and Fed doesn't have a great run since 2005, I can understand he can't be in the top 10.

Anyway, if you've posted Fed as #6 in the former pro player talk forum, the old-timers will say you're too young, too ignorant, no experience and thus not good enough to come up with assessment. Haha

big ted
10-08-2012, 06:42 PM
well apparently rogers winning percentage at the french open is 80.6 percent which is a smidgen less than the 3+FO winners. roger has won 10 clay tournaments. lendl and wilander have won 28 and 20 respectively. so i dont think federer can be put above the 3 time champions for open era
1-nadal
2- borg
3- lendl, wilander
5- kuerten
6- vilas, muster, federer

hoodjem
10-08-2012, 06:50 PM
thats true but kuerten was still a 20-30 ranked player and federer only had 2 gs tournaments under his belt at the time so i dont think the result was that shocking. bleacher report ranks federer 5th on clay of all time, giving kuerten and vilas an honorable mention
1. nadal
2. borg
3. lendl
4. wilander
5. federerBleacher report does NOT rank Fed as no. 5 all-time.

Here's their ranking.

http://bleacherreport.com/articles/1347476-greatest-clay-court-players-in-tennis-history

Here is that Bleacher list distilled for the men:
1. Nadal
2. Borg
3. Cochet
4. Lacoste
5. Wilander
6. Lendl
7. Kuerten

big ted
10-08-2012, 07:17 PM
Bleacher report does NOT rank Fed as no. 5 all-time.

Here's their ranking.

http://bleacherreport.com/articles/1347476-greatest-clay-court-players-in-tennis-history

Here is that Bleacher list distilled for the men:
1. Nadal
2. Borg
3. Cochet
4. Lacoste
5. Wilander
6. Lendl
7. Kuerten


they do here. i guess a different person wrote the article and ranked them different...
http://bleacherreport.com/articles/1281722-mens-tennis-the-5-best-clay-court-players-of-all-time

RF20Lennon
10-08-2012, 07:43 PM
Bleacher report does NOT rank Fed as no. 5 all-time.

Here's their ranking.

http://bleacherreport.com/articles/1347476-greatest-clay-court-players-in-tennis-history

Here is that Bleacher list distilled for the men:
1. Nadal
2. Borg
3. Cochet
4. Lacoste
5. Wilander
6. Lendl
7. Kuerten

I more or less agree with the list :)

TennisLovaLova
10-09-2012, 03:01 AM
the real question is : is federer > to borg on clay
judging by the titles, yes of course
but federer was denied by the clay goat nadal
so it's impossible to say really

Agassifan
10-09-2012, 03:41 AM
*much* better than Nadal as a hard courter

Crisstti
10-09-2012, 03:55 AM
*much* better than Nadal as a hard courter

He has more finals, but Nadal actually beat Fed and Novak in hard court slams.

Wilander Fan
10-09-2012, 05:19 AM
I would put him behind 2 time winners but with an asterisk. Given the number of other titles and the number of times he has lost to Nadal in the semis or finals, its not unfair to consider Fed to have been unlucky in playing in the same era as the clay court GOAT. He might have dominated clay in any other era.

hoodjem
10-09-2012, 05:49 AM
they do here. i guess a different person wrote the article and ranked them different...
http://bleacherreport.com/articles/1281722-mens-tennis-the-5-best-clay-court-players-of-all-time
Yes, you are correct. Very odd that there is not consistency in these lists from the same source. Talk about confusing . . .

(Yes, probably different opinions from different authors.)

NatF
10-09-2012, 05:52 AM
He has more finals, but Nadal actually beat Fed and Novak in hard court slams.

Beat past his prime Federer in hard court slams. How many hardcourt titles has Federer won with Nadal in the draw? If Nadal wasn't even good enough to reach Federer it's a bit unfair to cite the head to head.

TennisLovaLova
10-09-2012, 06:39 AM
Beat past his prime Federer in hard court slams. How many hardcourt titles has Federer won with Nadal in the draw? If Nadal wasn't even good enough to reach Federer it's a bit unfair to cite the head to head.

AO isnt really a true hard court so to speak
it plays slower than Roland Garros

corners
10-09-2012, 06:53 AM
On level of play on clay he's #2 or #3. His level of play on clay is higher than Muster, Bruguera, Lendl, Wilander, and most likely he would have taken out Borg regularly. But level comparisons are complicated by equipment changes. Borg would have been better had he grown up with larger headsizes and used copoly strings, but we'll never know how good. He definitely would not have had the power of Federer or Nadal. He would have been something like a faster, more accurate Ferrer. Would that be good enough to beat Nadal and Fed on clay?

On claycourt record alone Fed is top-10 all-time on clay.

Combining level and record, taking into account that the majority of his claycourt losses have come at the hands of the claycourt GOAT, and he's #3.

Crisstti
10-09-2012, 11:11 AM
Beat past his prime Federer in hard court slams. How many hardcourt titles has Federer won with Nadal in the draw? If Nadal wasn't even good enough to reach Federer it's a bit unfair to cite the head to head.

Probably as much past his prime as Nadal was in last year's RG.

Nadal wasn't at his prime yet on hard courts.

NatF
10-09-2012, 01:16 PM
Probably as much past his prime as Nadal was in last year's RG.

Nadal wasn't at his prime yet on hard courts.

Last years RG is irrelevent to how Nadal and Federer have done in hard court slams...

Well then I guess all we have to go on is how they did when did enter their primes on hard courts and currently Fed has 9 slams to Nadals 2.

zagor
10-09-2012, 04:01 PM
Somewhere from 8-15 all time. Most likely just outside the top 10 all time at 11th or 12th. Open Era alone I would rank him 6th behind Nadal, Borg, Lendl, Kuerten, Wilander in that order. There is no argument whatsoever for him being higher than 6th in the Open Era, but one could argue him being lower than Muster or Courier, and thus arguably lower than 6th.

While I agree with this overall, no way would I rank Muster ahead of Fed at this point, 5 FO finals compared to getting past QF twice and one final is just too much of a gap IMO even if we presume Muster's peak level on clay was better than Fed's (which is something I personally think).

Courier is a different matter, I think he's underrated as a claycourter, one could certainly argue he should be ranked higher than Fed on clay.

Gizo
10-09-2012, 10:06 PM
I agree that Federer is ahead of Muster in the clay court pecking order. I also agree that Muster's peak level on clay from 1995-1996 when he won had a spell of 99 wins out of 102 on the surface was better than Federer's.

However I think that even a peak level Muster would find Federer to be a pretty horrible match-up on clay. I think that Muster would have far more problems facing Federer on clay, but would get the better of Djokovic more often than not.

Prisoner of Birth
10-09-2012, 10:17 PM
I agree that Federer is ahead of Muster in the clay court pecking order. I also agree that Muster's peak level on clay from 1995-1996 when he won had a spell of 99 wins out of 102 on the surface was better than Federer's.

However I think that even a peak level Muster would find Federer to be a pretty horrible match-up on clay. I think that Muster would have far more problems facing Federer on clay, but would get the better of Djokovic more often than not.

So would Federer.

NadalAgassi
10-09-2012, 10:19 PM
While I agree with this overall, no way would I rank Muster ahead of Fed at this point, 5 FO finals compared to getting past QF twice and one final is just too much of a gap IMO even if we presume Muster's peak level on clay was better than Fed's (which is something I personally think).

Courier is a different matter, I think he's underrated as a claycourter, one could certainly argue he should be ranked higher than Fed on clay.

I didnt say I would rank Muster above Federer on clay. I only said one could definitely make an argument to rank Muster above Federer on clay and it wouldnt be at all unreasonable. Muster had 2 years he was far and away the Worlds best clay courter. Federer never was this. Muster also has won Rome and Monte Carlo, the 2nd and 3rd most prestigious clay court events, twice each. Federer has never won Rome or Monte Carlo. Lastly while I dont think the numerous tiny clay titles should be overemphasized it is still worth noting he has 40 clay titles.

Crisstti
10-10-2012, 04:12 AM
Last years RG is irrelevent to how Nadal and Federer have done in hard court slams...

Well then I guess all we have to go on is how they did when did enter their primes on hard courts and currently Fed has 9 slams to Nadals 2.

It's not really all we have to go by. But we'd probably just go around in circles with this.

merlinpinpin
10-10-2012, 04:43 AM
I didnt say I would rank Muster above Federer on clay. I only said one could definitely make an argument to rank Muster above Federer on clay and it wouldnt be at all unreasonable. Muster had 2 years he was far and away the Worlds best clay courter. Federer never was this. Muster also has won Rome and Monte Carlo, the 2nd and 3rd most prestigious clay court events, twice each. Federer has never won Rome or Monte Carlo. Lastly while I dont think the numerous tiny clay titles should be overemphasized it is still worth noting he has 40 clay titles.

Just so we know, which of the *three* titles (each) Muster won at MC and Rome are you asterisking? The '92 demolition of Krickstein in MC and the '90 execution of Chesnokov in Rome, I imagine? ;)